1) Know when to just save credits, not really try to win, like many on the team seem to

2) Shoot their good players over their bad players, especially if I played arty

3) Be aggressive and round the corner vs a 'red' over a 'green'

^This

If your sure to loose, keep fighting to get that money and maybe a medal for courageous resistance, that way it doesnt feel as much as a lost. But I get it, when MM gives you a strike of bad teams its normally time to walk away.

My advice? Uninstall xvm. It makes the game depressing every time you hit battle.

You will play become overconfident and throw when you are the favored, and "lose courage" when you are predicted to lose.

I uninstalled xvm several months ago when I was getting frustrated with the game and found I really enjoy tanks a lot more now.

I installed it just out of interest, but it has hilighted the fact that MM does a pretty good job in balancing the tanks, but could be improved by taking player skill into account. This has been an ongoing topic on this forum for quite a while and I think that this XVM data provides strong evidence in support of those who would like to see MM updated to include player skill.

I installed it just out of interest, but it has hilighted the fact that MM does a pretty good job in balancing the tanks, but could be improved by taking player skill into account. This has been an ongoing topic on this forum for quite a while and I think that this XVM data provides strong evidence in support of those who would like to see MM updated to include player skill.

Skill-based mm is a terrible idea. If implemented, it would be the biggest blow to the game since the removal of old maps.

I installed it just out of interest, but it has hilighted the fact that MM does a pretty good job in balancing the tanks, but could be improved by taking player skill into account. This has been an ongoing topic on this forum for quite a while and I think that this XVM data provides strong evidence in support of those who would like to see MM updated to include player skill.

I don't know that games have ever been mismatched that much on skill. The problem is the snowball effect. If 1-2 people make a nasty mistake, your team has a hard time recovering. Make those critical tanks and it is an avalanche loss. The new MM seems to be based upon tiers fighting equal tiers and that isn't how things work. Throw in the RNG effect and it is a [edited]soup of bleh!

Population isn't big enough. To make it work, you'd have to set up games with expanded tiers and then add in tier buffing. Or, in other words, tiers 1-2 play, tiers 3-6 play together, and tiers 7-10 play. Then, there would be an in-game buff, only, that would raise the health and pen levels to make tanks competitive. But, you'd have to talk WG into actually doing that. Even then, would that make sense or be a good thing? Games would be faster to get and it would be nice to see more types of tanks. Even then, is that a good thing?

Population isn't big enough. To make it work, you'd have to set up games with expanded tiers and then add in tier buffing. Or, in other words, tiers 1-2 play, tiers 3-6 play together, and tiers 7-10 play. Then, there would be an in-game buff, only, that would raise the health and pen levels to make tanks competitive. But, you'd have to talk WG into actually doing that. Even then, would that make sense or be a good thing? Games would be faster to get and it would be nice to see more types of tanks. Even then, is that a good thing?

I think that you over-complicate things. Given a list of 20,000 records (i.e. the current USC queue) with Type, Tier and let's say Player Rating fields. it is meat and potatoes programming to extract two equally balanced teams. It's when you want to start 'manipulating' the data to suit some other need that you find the population may not be sufficient or the queue time become unacceptable.